Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458685 manuel wolfshant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #21 from manuel wolfshant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-09-12 17:06:29 EDT --- This is the review of R2spec-2.5.0-1.fc9.src.rpm ,as downloaded from https://fedorahosted.org/r2spec/browser/R2spec-2.5.0-1.fc9.src.rpm The links provided in #18 are no longer valid Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: W: strange-permission R2spec.spec 0600 binary RPM:empty [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type:GPLv3+ [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package:2f731969f1b994db723c1cd8d2e07e95e553fd04 R2spec-2.5.0.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}. [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Package functions as described (according to comment #14 and #16). [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. === Issues === 1. %Source0 does not work due to the web server; the comment below it is wrong, as it references version 2.4.0. Would be nice to fix it, so as to allow checking with less hassle. I had to hunt around the site for the links. 2. Is the empty __init__.py file needed ? 3. Permissions of the R2spec.spec files are 600. Not a blocker, but ugly. Please fix before you commit to CVS. 4. Please consider using %defattr(-,root,root,-) instead of %defattr(-,root,root). Please fix/comment the above issues and I'll approve the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review